CVE-2022-20656

A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Cisco PI and Cisco EPNM could allow an authenticated, remote attacker to conduct a path traversal attack on an affected device. To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker must have valid credentials on the system.

This vulnerability is due to insufficient input validation of the HTTPS URL by the web-based management interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending a crafted request that contains directory traversal character sequences to an affected device. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to write arbitrary files to the host system. Cisco has released software updates that address these vulnerabilities. There are no workarounds that address these vulnerabilities.

Weakness

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize “../” sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

Affected Software

Extended Description

This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory. The “../” manipulation is the canonical manipulation for operating systems that use “/” as directory separators, such as UNIX- and Linux-based systems. In some cases, it is useful for bypassing protection schemes in environments for which “/” is supported but not the primary separator, such as Windows, which uses “" but can also accept “/”.

Potential Mitigations

• Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
• When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
• Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
• When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single “.” character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as “/” to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
• Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering “/” is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of “" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if “../” sequences are removed from the “…/…//” string in a sequential fashion, two instances of “../” would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the “../” string.

References

• https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-pi-epnm-path-trav-zws324yn
• https://sec.cloudapps.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-sna-xss-NXOxDhRQ